Harming America: Corporate Crime in a Context of Deregulation

ABSTRACT

Like many Republican presidential candidates before him, Donald J. Trump campaigned on a pro-business, anti-regulation platform, and since his election in November 2016, he has directed his administration to move forward with deregulation in many arenas, including consumer financial protections, environmental controls, and workplace safety among others. Past efforts to roll back regulations governing certain industries, such as the savings and loan and the mortgage industries, have had harmful consequences for the general public or for specific interest groups. In this study, we review what the Trump administration has accomplished with regard to deregulation to date. Then, based on past deregulatory fiascos, we theorize the harmful collateral consequences that may result from this most recent swing of the regulatory-deregulatory pendulum.     

Loring Paul Jones: Life After Foster Care: Improving Outcomes for Former Foster Youth

Journal of Youth and Adolescence -     

The several costs of responding to the threat of terrorism

This paper describes several dimensions of the cost of the U.S. response to the threat of terrorism. Following an evaluation of the nature and magnitude of the threat of terrorism against the United States, the paper describes the restrictions on our civil liberties, the fiscal and other costs of the major homeland security measures, the fiscal cost of programs that make no contribution to the defense against terrorism but are rationalized on that ground, and the effects on our language and the potential for civil discourse of an extended defense against terrorism.     

The legislative recreation of RICO: Reinforcing the ``myth' of organized crime

This paper uses historical content analysis to examine the implementation ofthe Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). It is argued thatthe historical events leading to the definition of organized crime as an alienconspiracy still affect RICO's use some 30 years after its passage. This paper applies state-centered theory to the theoretical frameworks of sociology of knowledge and innovation diffusion. This approach is used to relate the current implementation and controversy of RICO to the alien conspiracy view. Thought of in this context, legal implementation is the result of a knowledge creation and diffusion process. This paper demonstrates how one knowledge diffusionprocess (the acceptance of organized crime as a national conspiracy in 1970) leads to a new knowledge diffusion process (the use of RICO).     

Four Lessons for Developing Countries from the Trade Negotiations Over Access to Medicines

After the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into operation in 1995 developing countries have found themselves in a process of continual negotiation over intellectual property rights and access to medicines. These negotiations have taken place in the World Trade Organization and in the context of free trade agreements. The paper suggests that the only real win for developing countries has been the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in 2001. What have been the lessons for developing countries in a decade of negotiations over access to medicines? Drawing on themes of rule complexity and regulatory ritualism the paper discusses four key lessons for developing countries. It concludes by arguing that developing countries will do better if they adopt a networked governance approach to negotiation rather than continuing to rely on traditional coalition formation.     

Bingo! Cheating and legally suspect practices in one of North Carolina’s only forms of legalized gambling

Bingo is one of two legalized forms of gambling in the state of North Carolina. This paper is largely a product of information gleaned from an undercover police operation conducted by a special state task force constructed by the State Attorney General in 1983. The investigation concerned violation of state law designed to regulate bingo activity. This report provides the reader with the development of state law associated with bingo operations, and concentrates on the illegitimate methods used by professional operators to cheat bingo patrons. Legislation designed to crack-down on bingo abuse is discussed as well Gambling is one of the most controversial social activities yet one of the least studied forms of social behavior (King, 1985). Bingo is a specific form of legalized gambling which has received very little attention by social scientists. There have been, however, a few studies which address the characteristics and motivations of bingo players. For example, it has been suggested that bingo is primarily a female activity (Dixie, 1987). However, it has been found that motivations among male and female players differ. Females are motivated more by social contact with other players, whereas men are motivated more by a need for economic advancement (King, 1985). Although some studies exist on the characteristics of bingo players, there is a dearth of research on the operators of bingo games, particularly those operators who ply their trade in a legally suspect fashion. This paper focuses upon the legally suspect mechanisms utilized by some professionals who run bingo gambling operations. The controversy over gambling often extends to state legislatures where lawmakers must wrestle with the question of whether or not to allow legalized gambling within their borders. On the one hand, advocates of legalized gambling cite potential advantages such as the creation of employment opportunities, its potential for enhancement of state revenues, the recreational value of such activity for consumers and the general enhancement of tourism within states having legalized gambling. On the other hand, critics of legalized gambling proclaim its evils such as the perceived relationship of gambling to organized crime, the belief that gambling breeds other social ills (e.g. theft or other crimes of economic desperation) and the belief that gambling can become a psychologically addictive disease which can contribute to individual and family impoverishment as well as community disorganization. North Carolina is one state in which the legislature has demonstrated strong resistance to the allowance of legalized gambling operations. Two exceptions exist, however. North Carolina allows two forms of legalized gambling, bingo games and raffles. This paper focuses upon bingo gambling operations. The central thesis of this paper is bingo was originally legalized to provide tax-exempt, charitable organizations a means of revenue enhancement which would help fund their socially worthwhile endeavors. The legislative changes allowing this form of gambling, however, have created opportunities for professional game operators whose major motivation is personal economic enrichment (versus economic enhancement of charitable organizations). The personal economic enrichment motive is offered to account for the various forms of cheating which were observed in a special investigation of a sample of bingo operations. In a review of theoretical explanations of gambling behavior Kim King (1985) suggests an extension of the functional approach which he labels an “Economic/Status” explanation. This explanation stresses the positive functions of gambling for society and the individual. According to the economic/status explanation, the positive functions of gambling (for the individual) include an innovative opportunity for economic enrichment, success, and status (King, 1985). We would like to suggest that such reasons explain why a number of legally suspect bingo operations have emerged in North Carolina. The same reasons appear to explain the use of various schemes by some bingo operators to cheat their patrons. In short, bingo profits appear to be the primary reason for the massive increase in the number of bingo operations. Other theoretical factors are suggested to account for the attraction of patrons to bingo games. According to King (1985), the “functionalist” explanation of the recent popularity of bingo gambling is due to the tension-release afforded to players of bingo; bingo offers an exciting and innovative way to attain economic success. A concurrent Marxian explanation sees bingo gambling as an opiate of the oppressed, providing a false sense of control and success (King, 1985). Other theoretical factors suggested by King include the symbolic interactionist idea that gambling is a way to display one’s self to others in order to gain character (Goffman, 1967) and the idea that gambling for some people is a means of conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899). These factors may account for the popularity of bingo operations, however the focus of this paper is not upon an explanation of why bingo has become so popular. This paper will outline some of the legally suspect methods used by unscrupulous bingo game operators. The information for this report is based upon an undercover police investigation of illegal bingo activity in North Carolina. The investigation was to explore the nature of illegal bingo gambling within the state. Bingo gambling has a unique history in North Carolina; its recent legal history will be discussed in this treatise as well as the various legitimate and illegitimate methods of bingo game operators, state law designed to regulate bingo gambling and measures taken by “professional” (versus “charitable”) operators to protect their lucrative but legally suspect trade.     

“The Spectacle of Fearsome Acts”: Crime in the Melting P(l)ot in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Gangs of New York</Emphasis>

This paper explores the multi-layered representations of violence and crime in the recent Hollywood film Gangs of New York [Scorcese (2003) Miramax]. We use our exploration of this film to suggest that popular culture, even through its most mainstream products, can be seen as a critical criminological space where alternative views of law, crime and the state are made available. Rather than understanding Hollywood movies simply as vehicles for disseminating conventional mores, we suggest that they can furnish critical (and complex) points of view on law and crime and that the project of a critical criminology can be strengthened by engaging more forthrightly with these ubiquitous cultural forms.     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.